Role of prophets, revelation, and the teaching authority of the church

[Last_Daze]

I just want to preface this by saying that I am not trying to be argumentative, but that I really need help with this because I am having honest difficulty understanding this.

I feel that, whenever there is a question about a teaching of the church, there is always the answer from someone that "this is not doctrine", with the implication being that it one needn't believe it or consider it authoritative in any way. I guess that is okay, but I see that claim made even with regard to teachings promulgated by the prophets. The only pattern that I can say that I see is that the things that the teachings promulgated by the prophets are authoritative until we (royal we) no longer want them to be.

When is the church able to teach authoritatively on a subject (whether theological, practical, ecclesiastical, etc.)? I know some who take the position that a teaching of the church only authoritative when it is found in the standard works; if this is the case, has the church made any authoritative teaching since 1978, when the latest section was added to the D&C? To take such a position would seem to me to almost entirely devalue the place of church leaders who are supposed to have prophetic authority.

Is there a way to know when something that a prophetic authority in the church says is authoritative? Or is it simply a matter of picking and choosing which statements we wish to believe and follow? And if it is a matter of choosing, does the church have any authority to teach at all?

I hope my questions don't come off as argumentative or belligerent; I am really trying to be sincere. I hope someone may be able to shed some light on the matter.

[MarginOfError]

I don't see this as an argumentative question at all. In fact, I think it's a very pertinent question. We've seen in recent discussions that some people are quick to take anything out of the mouth of an Apostle as the equivalent of eternal doctrine. At the same time, there are some teachings that seem to change over time or in practice. In general, I think we as a people do a very poor job of teaching our members to determine how we should approach this very question.

I wrote a pretty long post that talked about a similar topic once before. I'm linking to it here rather than typing it all again.

[JudoMinja]

I've spoken with you somewhat on this topic in PMs but would like to post a bit here as well. The only authoritative documents that have been given by the prophets after the last excerpt in D&C are The Living Christ, and The Family- A Proclamation to the World. These are both single page "essays", if you will. The first gives the testimony of the First Presidency concerning the nature of Christ and His divine mission. The second gives an explanation of the role of families in both the gospel and the world.

Aside from the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and D&C, these are the only documents bearing the weight of authority and doctrine. All members are recommended to have copies in their home framed and placed on their walls. We are counseled to study them along side our scriptural studies.

There is one other document which could be considered "scripture", but it does not come from the prophet. This comes from a patriarch (a designated priesthood calling). A patriarch gives members their "patriarchal blessing". This blessing is entirely individualized, considered very sacred, and contains revelation from the Father pertaining to the life of that individual. For each individual, their patriarchal blessing is another portion of "scripture" which they are to read and study often. Portions of an individual's patriarchal blessing are to be shared only when and with whom the Spirit directs due to its sacredness.

Nothing else spoken by the prophets is considered to be "doctrinal". We are, however, supposed to follow the living prophet and strive to abide by his teachings. The talks given in every semi-annual general conference are meant to offer guidance and give warnings that most pertain to our current time. The reason these talks are not considered doctrine is because the advice and warnings given will not always be pertinent. Anything spoken in the most recent conference would be considered the most pertinent teachings for us at this time, and so carry almost as much weight as the doctrine.

Prophetic authority comes from the fact that He holds all the keys of the Priesthood. He and the apostles are literal witnesses of Christ. They receive revelation directly from the Father for our benefit. When we adhere to any advice given by the prophet, even when it does not bear the weight of doctrine, we will not be led astray. There is always the possibility that at the next conference (or the next, or the next) that the prophet will offer a new "doctrinal" message. Such will come when the Lord is ready to offer it. He teaches line upon line, precept upon precept. There is no point worrying about the NEXT line or precept until we have mastered that which we already have. The Lord knows when we are ready for more, and then He will give it to us, through the mouths of His prophets.

[Traveler]

There is a little bit of a misunderstanding concerning covenants and the authority in that covenant. This is spelled out in D&C 84.

A couple of things to keep in mind – just because someone has authority does not mean that they are correct. This is why we are always told to follow the living prophets, seers and revelators.

We are told we cannot go wrong in following the living prophet. This is true and is spelled out in D&C 84. By covenant we sustain and agree to “obey” those called to serve. As long as we do that then according to the covenant we are not accountable for our leader’s errors – only for our obedience or disobedience. This is in part the meaning of agency. But there is an exception (as always). We can choose to take responsibility and become agents unto ourselves. If we feel that our leaders are in error we can accept the consequences which includes forfeiting the blessings and protections of obedience to the covenant and do what we believe is better. We then are alone accountable and must justify our actions at the great judgment of G-d.

I would also point out that to seek clarification among our priesthood leaders is not an act of heresy. For example of our priesthood leader was to teach that evolutions is false we might want to make sure we understand what exactly they are teaching. We may want to be very specific. If we find that we are in disagreement then we have a decision according to our disagreement. As I have pointed out there are two possible paths – both of which could turn out well for us but there is only one path that could turn out to our detriment before the L-rd.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

The Church's official statement is here:

Scholarship in Mormonism and Mormonism in Scholarship

Basically it states that the scriptures and official proclamations are doctrine.

We can read:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

So, a well defined statement or statements we find in the scriptures and official declarations are our doctrines. Everything else is teachings that may or may not be doctrine.

I look at it this way:

Our foundation is Doctrine. Principle is built upon doctrine. Upon the principles and doctrines are the teachings, rules, guidelines, etc., that allow the Church to function. This upper level of teachings and guidelines can change at any time, as it is not doctrine.

Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Basic Doctrines and Principles are found in the Articles of Faith. These are expounded upon more within the scriptures and official declarations. For example, "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost" is core doctrine. The concept that God is a resurrected being that lived on his own planet is not a core doctrine, but is extra-canonical teachings that are not well defined. It resides, therefore, on the top layer, which can change as we gain new revelation.

However, we also learn that Faith in Jesus Christ and Repentance are core principles that are followed by the core ordinances of Baptism and Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. These ARE well defined and understood from our reading of the scriptures.

And this is how we need to judge the teachings and writings of the prophets, both ancient and modern. If something is a well established doctrine or principle, then it is firm and unchangeable. However, if an apostle writes according to his opinion, we must consider it in light of the doctrines and principles found in the scriptures, official proclamations, and current teachings of the living prophet.

This is why I can accept many things in Mormon Doctrine, and reject many other things. It depends on whether he is actually teaching the doctrine, or sharing his own beliefs on non-doctrinal issues.

[rameumptom]

The Church's official statement is here:

http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Basically it states that the scriptures and official proclamations are doctrine.

We can read:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

So, a well defined statement or statements we find in the scriptures and official declarations are our doctrines. Everything else is teachings that may or may not be doctrine.

I look at it this way:

Our foundation is Doctrine. Principle is built upon doctrine. Upon the principles and doctrines are the teachings, rules, guidelines, etc., that allow the Church to function. This upper level of teachings and guidelines can change at any time, as it is not doctrine.

Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Basic Doctrines and Principles are found in the Articles of Faith. These are expounded upon more within the scriptures and official declarations. For example, "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost" is core doctrine. The concept that God is a resurrected being that lived on his own planet is not a core doctrine, but is extra-canonical teachings that are not well defined. It resides, therefore, on the top layer, which can change as we gain new revelation.

However, we also learn that Faith in Jesus Christ and Repentance are core principles that are followed by the core ordinances of Baptism and Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. These ARE well defined and understood from our reading of the scriptures.

And this is how we need to judge the teachings and writings of the prophets, both ancient and modern. If something is a well established doctrine or principle, then it is firm and unchangeable. However, if an apostle writes according to his opinion, we must consider it in light of the doctrines and principles found in the scriptures, official proclamations, and current teachings of the living prophet.

This is why I can accept many things in Mormon Doctrine, and reject many other things. It depends on whether he is actually teaching the doctrine, or sharing his own beliefs on non-doctrinal issues.

Finally, the Church's statement tells us:

• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

I am responsible for my own testimony. Edited December 2, 2010 by rameumptom

[Last_Daze]

Thanks for the response so far.

If the matter is as simple as that we are bound by covenant to obey the prophet-leaders of the church, then why the constant push-and-pull over what the church teaches and what members should and should not believe? Why tolerate all these 'extra-canonical teachings' which clearly confuse people inside the church and cause scandal outside the church?

What are we to make of a person whose 'personal revelation' leads him to conclude that something taught by a current prophetic authority is false, and to be disregarded? Surely one or the other is wrong; a thing cannot be both correct and false, and the Spirit is not supposed to speak falsehoods or half-truths. I freely admit that I do not understand the nature of 'personal revelation', and struggle with the concept.

Rameumptom: the sources you mention were helpful. What, though, constitutes an "official church declaration [or] proclamation"? General conference stuff? The Ensign, and other magazines published by the church? What about all those books in the LDS.org bookstore? Anything with the church logo or letterhead? How is one to know?

On a semi-related note, I do think I understand now the problems with McConkie's Mormon Doctrine; it seems he couldn't have chosen a worse name for the work, and if it were something different, he probably wouldn't be taking nearly as much posthumous flak as he seems to from modern LDS.

Just want to apologize again if I come off as a jerk; a lot of this is just very confusing to me.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Last_Daze

[Traveler]

Listening carefully to general conference one will quickly become aware that the LDS are not being instructed in very much doctrine. The emphasis of the Church and kingdom during these last days is not centered as much on doctrine as it is repentance and being of service. Recently the leaders added an additional point of focus. The 4 points are:

1. Perfect the saints

2. Proclaim the gospel

3. Redeem the dead

4. Assist the needy

Some may feel that the #2 that I listed has to do with doctrine but that is not exactly true. Proclaiming the gospel primarily entails Faith, Repentance, Baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost and then if you will, enduring to the end. I prefer to call it living at peace to the end. We are not going to have to pass a test on doctrine. In fact the baptismal or temple interviews have little to do with doctrine and a lot to do with behavior and how we live and treat others.

So go do something wonderful for somebody.

The Traveler

[Last_Daze]

So go do something wonderful for somebody.

Happily, I don't see my inquiry into the teachings of the church precluding me from doing so.

Thanks for your concern.

[bytor2112]

Of course the church teaches that when our General Authorities speak (under the influence of the Holy Spirit) it is the same as if Christ had said it. Unless of course..........

" When these men speak under the influence of the Holy Ghost, it is the same as if Christ Himself were speaking -Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A, (2000), 77

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Edited December 3, 2010 by bytor2112

[Traveler]

Of course the church teaches that when our General Authorities speak (under the influence of the Holy Spirit) it is the same as if Christ had said it. Unless of course..........

" When these men speak under the influence of the Holy Ghost, it is the same as if Christ Himself were speaking -Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A, (2000), 77

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

I am one of the lucky very few that has had the opportunity to have a personal relationship with an apostle and other general authorities. I am not sure if I will classify this as good or bad but there is a significant difference between words spoken in public and that which is spoken in private. I have pondered this difference in my mind and heart and to this day I am not sure if they speak more by the spirit in public or in private. I can say that their words to me in private had had a greater impact than what I have heard then speak in public assemblies.

But then my greatest personal revelations of the spirit have come to me when I have been alone in my private struggles in a quiet place and not when I have been surrounded by others.

The Traveler

[martybess]

I am one of the lucky very few that has had the opportunity to have a personal relationship with an apostle and other general authorities. I am not sure if I will classify this as good or bad but there is a significant difference between words spoken in public and that which is spoken in private. I have pondered this difference in my mind and heart and to this day I am not sure if they speak more by the spirit in public or in private. I can say that their words to me in private had had a greater impact than what I have heard then speak in public assemblies.

But then my greatest personal revelations of the spirit have come to me when I have been alone in my private struggles in a quiet place and not when I have been surrounded by others.

The Traveler

I would agree. From my personal experiences I have come to see how great these men really are. Yes they are only human but when alone with someone and they are guided to share all I have to say is WOW!. I have a long, long ways to go and it's up to me to get there. I think our greatest responsibility is to have the guidance of the HG with us all the time. Plain and simple. IF we can receive this it will be well with us and we will not be lost. I'm not really helping with the question asked about revelation other then to say if you have the HG you will know what's doctrine so seek for the HIS companionship first and the rest will flow. That is what the Apostles have show by example, in private. Powerful stuff.

[rameumptom]

Thanks for the response so far.

What are we to make of a person whose 'personal revelation' leads him to conclude that something taught by a current prophetic authority is false, and to be disregarded? Surely one or the other is wrong; a thing cannot be both correct and false, and the Spirit is not supposed to speak falsehoods or half-truths. I freely admit that I do not understand the nature of 'personal revelation', and struggle with the concept.

Rameumptom: the sources you mention were helpful. What, though, constitutes an "official church declaration [or] proclamation"? General conference stuff? The Ensign, and other magazines published by the church? What about all those books in the LDS.org bookstore? Anything with the church logo or letterhead? How is one to know?

Actually, the Holy Spirit can teach in "half-truths". It gives to us that portion of the truth we are ready and willing to receive (see Alma 29:8). So it leads us to the fullness of truth, IF we are ready and open to receiving it. However, most of us get bogged down in our own sins, speculations, personal world views, etc., which prevent us from seeing or understanding more. So, we are left with some truth, but not all of it.

Christians have a testimony of Christ through the Holy Ghost. However, most do not have a testimony of the restored gospel, simply because they have not prepared their hearts and minds to accept those additional truths. The Lord does not toss pearls to the swine, as Christ once taught his apostles, meaning if people are not ready for a spiritual witness or teaching, they will not receive it.

Official Declarations and Proclamations will be labeled as such, and they are signed by at least the First Presidency, if not also by the Twelve Apostles. In the last few decades we've received two of them:

The Family, a Proclamation to the World

And

The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles

All Conference talks are subject to our personal prayers to gain witness of their truth, and how to apply them in our life. Pres Packer gave a talk this past conference, which in the printed text was changed somewhat to ensure the correct meaning, for example. As individuals, we must compare their teachings to those things clearly taught in scripture and Proclamations. Then we must pray to gain our own witness of it. If we do not gain a witness of it after pondering and praying, then it is not binding upon us as individuals. However, if the Spirit witnesses it as truth to us, then it is binding on us as individuals.

In years past, it was common for General Authorities to speculate a lot from the pulpit and in their writings. Many members confused this with actual doctrine. However, in the last 30 years, the Church has worked towards focusing on doctrine and principles, and leaving speculation out of General Conference as much as possible. Pres Packer, as president of the Quorum of Twelve, has constantly encouraged our Church leaders to only teach the doctrines and principles, leaving the speculations. Why? Because we are saved in the doctrines and principles, and not by the teachings which may or may not be true.

As President Kimball once noted, it doesn't matter if the Pearly Gates swing open or slide open, as long as they open.

Does this mean we shouldn't speculate? Of course not. What it does mean is we do not teach speculation as doctrine, and we must spend more time learning and studying doctrine than the speculations out there. So, when I am writing or teaching, when I speculate I will almost always state it as such: using terms as "perhaps", "maybe", "it is possible", "some think", "I believe", etc.

[bytebear]

The LDS Church is at a major disadvantage when it comes to declarative statements by church leaders. First of all, other than Catholics who have the Pope, no other Christian church has a lineage of individual leaders who are seen as the voice of the faith. And even still, no one nit pics all of the speeches of the Pope and Cardinals looking for contradictory and controversial statements.

Of course the other disadvantage the church has is it's consistent and persistent record keeping, which means it's easy to find those controversial statements.

Were a protestant confronted with past leader's statements which are controversial, he can simply say, that doesn't official represent my church and that leader is not of the "official" body of believers. So it's easy to dismiss past statements.

[MarginOfError]

The LDS Church is at a major disadvantage when it comes to declarative statements by church leaders. First of all, other than Catholics who have the Pope, no other Christian church has a lineage of individual leaders who are seen as the voice of the faith. And even still, no one nit pics all of the speeches of the Pope and Cardinals looking for contradictory and controversial statements.

I think Catholics would beg to differ with you on this one. Papal statements are highly scrutinized.

[ozzy]

I recommend the CES manual "Teachings of the Living Prophets" to those determining what is and isn't doctrine as far as the brethren go. Chapter four is especially helpful.

Aside from that, I would just like to point out that the majority of the time what the prophet adn apostles say in conference or in public with the intent of teaching can be found rather easily in the scriptures. In only a few cases (like with gambling) must one even consider their teachings an interpretation and all such teachings have proven themselves worthy over time.

I think the largest problem is not so much in the words of the brethren in conference, as it is in their words in personal publications such as 'Mormon Doctrine'. I will point out that these books are not doctrine of the church. I don't do this as a matter of my interpretation, but because they themselves say so in the introduction. McConkie himself stated in the introduction something along the lines of that the book was not intended to be official church teaching. All such books that I have come across recently have such statements and therefore we may rest assured that while perhaps highly inspired or wise in their writing, such publications are not doctrinally binding.

And again, most things in the ensign and conference are centered wholly in scripture. Whether or not the words themselves are doctrinally binding, their foundation is. If on the off chance it isn't found in the scriptures, then it is wisdom based on personal experience and not necessarily binding to us.

[Blackmarch]

I just want to preface this by saying that I am not trying to be argumentative, but that I really need help with this because I am having honest difficulty understanding this.

I feel that, whenever there is a question about a teaching of the church, there is always the answer from someone that "this is not doctrine", with the implication being that it one needn't believe it or consider it authoritative in any way. I guess that is okay, but I see that claim made even with regard to teachings promulgated by the prophets. The only pattern that I can say that I see is that the things that the teachings promulgated by the prophets are authoritative until we (royal we) no longer want them to be.

When is the church able to teach authoritatively on a subject (whether theological, practical, ecclesiastical, etc.)? I know some who take the position that a teaching of the church only authoritative when it is found in the standard works; if this is the case, has the church made any authoritative teaching since 1978, when the latest section was added to the D&C? To take such a position would seem to me to almost entirely devalue the place of church leaders who are supposed to have prophetic authority.

when there are 2 or more witnesses with authority that recieve revelation on whatever thing... but one should recieve confirmation from the holyghost on the matter.

Generally the conferences are seen as authoritive.

Is there a way to know when something that a prophetic authority in the church says is authoritative? Or is it simply a matter of picking and choosing which statements we wish to believe and follow? And if it is a matter of choosing, does the church have any authority to teach at all?

there is a very very easy trap to fall into here, one that the jews have, that many christians have, and many time LDS members do- making the mistake that we understand a principle or teaching absolutely that is given by someone at some time to the point that we place anything else beneath it without question or for naught. And because of that we end up with pharisaism where people want to slice and dice things exactly- This is "absolute" doctrine and this other is not.

We have to remember what the bible teaches about a prophet- that they are like an observer set upon a tower to watch and warn when and how the enemy sets itself against Christ's followers... The tower is the inspiration and revelations of God, and it is up to the observer (the prophet) to use his skills in warning us. And he'll do that with the skills, knowledge and reasoning he has.

To those who would like to slice dice what they say in such a manner, you do so at your own peril.

I hope my questions don't come off as argumentative or belligerent; I am really trying to be sincere. I hope someone may be able to shed some light on the matter.

this isn't argumentive at all. great question.